posted
No, I'm asking you to put yourself in our shoes. I hope that I could still defend your beliefs, even if my beliefs tell me that they're wrong.
quote:I think my point might be that there is a difference between acknowledging differences in beliefs and explaining to another person, using absolute language, that they are wrong, without recognizing that the other person’s perspective may be different.
See, that's the thing. We do recognize that other people's perspectives are different. The problem isn't that we don't see a difference, but that we don't always act sympatheticaly and sensitively. And that's the point of my question: When you believe that your beliefs are correct and that others' are incorrect, how do you defend yourself without seeming arrogant and insensitive?
[ April 16, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to echo Jon Boy's post. I wouldn't find your example to be offensive and condescending either, unless you brought it up all the time. But if it was in response to a discussion about non-LDS beliefs about temples, then it would be relevant and honest.
I think this shows a real difference in the worldview of Mormons, although I'm not really sure exactly what that difference is. I can understand why this practice would be offensive to you, but only in an academic sense, because I honestly believe that if I were in your place, it wouldn't offend me.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, that was a wonderful post. I don't quite know what to say, except to acknowledge that I can see that that attitude would be annoying. I can say that I have the utmost and complete respect for you, for your relationship with God, and for the work that you're doing.
quote:Well intentioned, and God will give them credit for that, but not really doing what they think they’re doing.
That's actually what I thought non-LDS thought about temple work.
---
I'm sorry this has made you unhappy. I know that's sort of a crappy kind of apology. I have encountered your feelings before, and felt the same inadequacy of words.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon, Ah. Okay. If I accepted Mormon beliefs about God and the afterlife, then posthumous baptism makes sense. Note again, that I have never said you should stop. In your shoes, I wouldn’t.
Porter and Kamisaki, I’ve glad that you don’t find my example offensive. I put a lot of thought into how to phrase it, in the attempt to make it non-offensive. But I submit to you that if I were to start a thread detailing LDS temple practices and “explaining” how misguided they are, it would be protested (rightly) and probably deleted by the moderators.
Kat, to put it bluntly, that is what non-LDS think about temple work. Which is why I don’t think you should let my opinion of it matter, and why I don’t challenge your view of my sacramental authority, only how that view is expressed. My concern is how we can learn to talk lovingly to one another, in a forum where neither of our views are pre-judged above the other.
posted
I realize that you never said we should stop the practice, and I really appreciated your post, dkw. What I mean is, how can we defend or even explain baptisms for the dead without saying that we believe that other churches don't have the authority from God? Let's assume you're LDS and someone asks you why your church feels that baptisms for the dead are necessary. It seems that at some point you're going to say that only the LDS Church has the authority to baptize. Yes, it's offensive to everyone else, but I honestly don't see how to avoid saying it.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
an LDS Hatracker has explained to me that the reason the LDS don’t consider other baptisms valid is that the people performing them have no authority from God, and seemed to think this would make me feel better about the LDS position!
Actually, when I posted similar thoughts to others, I didn't necessarily expect them to feel better about my position. They're going to feel how they feel.
My viewpoint was "I understand how this can be offensive to you, and how it can come across as condescending to you beliefs. I'm sorry about that. But this is why I do what I do. I believe I'm commanded by God to do it, and I'm not going to stop."
So Dana:
I would like to see your answer to the question posed several pages ago: "What does God do for people who never had the opportunity to accept baptism, any baptism?"
We think He gives them baptisms for the dead in an LDS temple. Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm not sure what you're asking, then. What can I say?
I'd never bring it up in casual or even deep conversation unless it was hugely relevant. "Here's some hot chocolate, and by the way..."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just figured out why the title for this is so funny to me. Imagine Hilary and Hatch had never met. And then imagine this thread title starting another one of those, "So-and-so got baptized a few months ago" rumors that only occasionally turn out to be true.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon, you’re getting your point across. I’m just not cooperating. The dialogue I posted was still me trying to explain what I was complaining about in the first place, not me accepting your challenge (yet).
posted
Sweet William, short answer: I believe that God can take care of it. Slightly longer answer: while I believe that baptism is the central and defining characteristic of the Christian faith and life, I don’t believe that it is a precondition to full salvation. God’s grace is available to all.
I really don’t have a problem with you offering baptism to people who never had a chance to accept it. It’s a very generous idea.
All I’m really asking is that when we have these conversations, other points of view are also heard. I believe that baptism is a sacrament of prevenient grace. That is to say, grace that comes before we ask for it, or even know we need it. It is God’s reaching out to us, and only secondarily our response to God’s reaching. We make promises (or they are made on our behalf and confirmed by us at our confirmation), but primary in the covenant is God’s promise to us. Baptism is being signed with God’s name, both as a work of God’s creation, the way an artist signs a painting, and being tagged as a possession, the way you write your name in your underwear before you go to camp. And God uses indelible ink.
Which is why the UMC does not re-baptize. To do so would be to say that God broke a promise. It’s flat out blasphemy. Even when we screw up, we still belong to God. We are God’s creation, and God’s possession. And our baptism calls us to repentance and to return to God.
posted
Now, dkw, your last post just convinced me even more that people in general shouldn't get offended so easily. If I were thinking like a lot of people in this thread seems to be, I would ream you for calling someone else's religious beliefs blasphemous. As it is, it really doesn't bother me, because you're just explaining your POV, but can you see how if a Mormon on this thread had said that, they'd instantly get flamed?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. 'cause I've seen it happen, and they didn't. Check out any thread where LDS mention "the Apostasy." Or the Council of Nicea. Or the Trinity.
Edit: I’m not trying to claim there’s a double standard, or an anti-non-LDS Christian bias on Hatrack. Still just trying to answer the question “why are people offended by this?”
Only family members can perform the proxy baptisms, correct? (this is a recent development, since 1995, I think, too).
So, if there is a bloodline out there with no LDS members, then that bloodline can't have proxy baptisms at all? Ever?
Would the LDS church need to convert *one* person in that line and then convince that person to proxy baptise everyone in their lineage back into history?
This is prompting me to write a far-future story where there is only one bloodline left that hasn't received the true word, and the entirety of the Mormon world really hoping one of the living ones will convert.
Would this be a valid plot arc?
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw: The current way isn't working? Because the only time I've been offended in this thread has been in the personal insults and graphic dismissals. I think the only two options are to either be kind but honest, or else to not talk about it.
StallingCow: Write it! I'm not sure it would really work that way, but you can make the rules. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only family members can perform the proxy baptisms, correct?
Nope. I believe only family members can submit names for baptism (though this rule is incredibly hard if not impossible to enforce, I imagine). Then, anyone (of the same gender as the deceased) with a temple recommend can be the proxy.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Good. If I understand you correctly, you're content to take it on faith that God will take care of that contingency. Which is a perfectly valid belief, IMHO.
If baptism isn't a hard and fast requirement for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, then really, no biggie.
I'm coming from the viewpoint that John 3:5 pretty much says that it is a requirement. Different interpretation.
So, in my universe God made a rule: You must be baptized to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Period.
So, what happens to people who never have the opportunity to be baptized?
I likewise believe that God can take care of it.
I just happen to believe that he's told us "this is the way I intend to take care of it. Now go do this." ("This" being temple work for the dead).
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. I think we are using the words "offense" and "offensive" differently. I shall ponder.
(I've said it before, but it bears repeating -- I really do think of Hatrack as a laboratory for inter-religious dialogue. I think we've got something rare and precious here, and that in our conversations we're actively working toward peace and reconciliation on earth.) Grandiose, I know.
Edit: And now I must fly. If anyone asks further questions of me, or responds to my posts, I’m not ignoring you, I’m not here. There. Whatever.
posted
Only family members can perform the proxy baptisms, correct?
Okay, let me set some things straight, in light of being totally honest.
Church leaders have asked us to only submit names for people in our own genealogical lines.
They have asked us to refrain from submitting "famous" names, unless that person is in our genealogical line.
They have asked us to likewise refrain from submitting shoa victims' names, unless they are in our genealogical line.
If a person is recently deceased, they ask that we be very careful and considerate and receive permission from the oldest or closest living relative to submit the name for temple work.
None of the above is enforced. Period. I have never even seen an attempt to enforce the above.
If I've got the necessary info, I can submit any male name I want, and do all of the temple work for that person. I can submit any female name I want, and ask a faithful female LDS member to do her work.
I can be proxy baptized for any male name that has been submitted. Often, I will take a group of youth to do baptisms for the dead. We usually get names from some older member of our ward who has discovered some people in his/her genealogical line who "need" baptism. None of us are related to these people, but we are baptized for them, all the same.
The relationship thing is important, but it's not an absolute rule.
But the story idea sounds great. In fact, you could create a universe where such a rule has been placed into effect and enforced. Then the story works perfectly.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Kat and Kamisaki, do you see a difference between my saying
1) People who rebaptize are committing blasphemy
and
2) The UMC believes that baptism contains an irrevocable promise from God, therefore for us to rebaptize would be to say that God broke a promise, which would be blasphemy
Now I’m gone. (For a bit.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:can you see how if a Mormon on this thread had said that, they'd instantly get flamed? ... Nope. 'cause I've seen it happen, and they didn't. Check out any thread where LDS mention "the Apostasy." Or the Council of Nicea. Or the Trinity.
I still say on this thread they would've gotten flamed, 'cause on this thread they've gotten flamed for saying much less than that.
quote:We say, "I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but this is what I truly believe, and I feel like I've got good reasons for believing this."
And others respond, "I realize that your beliefs are different, but you meant no offense, so I will decide not to be offended."
Exactly, Jon Boy, that was my point, too.
And dkw, yes I can see a difference, between 1) and 2), but your original statement was not 2) and from your original statement 1) could reasonably be implied.
All these hypotheticals are getting me confused, though. Remind me again, what exactly do we disagree on? I think we should try to be as civil as possible in our discussions, but also that we should take other people's motives into account and not take offense where none was intended. Does anybody disagree with that?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
That said, I have nothing further to contribute at this point - I think this thread really is winding down, and there really isn't much more than can be said right now.
I think. I'm too exhausted right now to be sure.
Posts: 2661 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, I understand exactly what you mean. It is one thing to be aware that others beliefs conflict directly with ones own, its quite another to endure repeatedly being told about it. You are not alone in this. After all, I've been repeatedly told in this thread that I am a "self centered, arrogant, jerk" because of my religious beliefs.
I am not offended that others don't understand baptism the way I do. I can handle others being repulsed by some of my religious beliefs. But page after page of being told over and over again that I have to admit that what I am doing is bad and the people should be offended and that I myself am deeply flawed for believing it, is simply over the top.
We are never going to come to a meeting of the minds through this process. The longer the discussion goes on, the more reason we all have to be offended. Can't we just agree to disagree and move on?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Mormons should have a "do not baptize" list that people can sign up on. Like the federal list of phone numbers that can't be called for solicitation. You could maintain the database, then when somebody nominates a dead person for proxy baptism, you type in the name and if it's on the list, you don't do it.
Heck, even the JW's have a 'do not call' list you can get on to never have them knock on your door.
Then people who are irritated by the idea of posthumous baptism can sign up and feel relieved that it will never happen to them. Though, of course, this wouldn't help those who have already died.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I submit to you that if I were to start a thread detailing LDS temple practices and “explaining” how misguided they are, it would be protested (rightly) and probably deleted by the moderators.
I find this statement rather ironic since this thread consists of 20 pages much of which contains people explaining how misguided and offensive the LDS temple practice of baptism for the dead is and to my knowledge no one has protested and the moderators haven't deleted it. In fact, not one LDS member on the board has shown any recognition that the LDS might have any right to be offended by being called self centered, arrogant jerks.
Our moderators are not nearly as biased as you claim.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, rabbit, I'm perfectly content for you to be offended by me calling you arrogant self centered jerks.
All I'm really asking is that you acknowledge that what you are doing is not going to be received with open arms, and that some people may in fact see your actions as repulsive, highly offensive, and possibly dangerous... and that you disregard what those people think.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But page after page of being told over and over again that I have to admit that what I am doing is bad and the people should be offended and that I myself am deeply flawed for believing it"
Rabbit, you have continually ignored the simple fact that all I'M asking of you is to acknowledge that people have perfectly legitimate reasons to be offended by the ritual, and are neither close-minded or arrogant for being so.
Will you concede that this is the case, or do you still pretend that you simply can't understand why anyone sensible would object to the practice?
---------
"So how do we talk about it?"
Well, the whole thing, as I see it, boils down to this:
A lot of people on this thread think they've talked to God. Dana thinks that she's been told to be a Methodist minister and perform baptisms in God's name. Other people here think that they've been told that the baptisms she performs are pointless and invalid, and that it's their divine duty to mop up after her in the afterlife.
Belle's thread of last week -- now, sadly, deleted, for some reason -- offered her suggestion to this classic dilemma: that there's a core of truth in here somewhere, and it somehow suits God's purposes to have two people believe completely incompatible things.
So what you have to do is this: decide that, yes, Dana's entitled to do her work, and Rabbit's entitled to do hers, and neither of you should take it personally that the other one thinks you're wrong -- because in the same way that Dana's been called to baptize and Jon Boy's been called to baptize, you've ALL been called, as far as this logic can take us, to believe different things. Your disagreements, then, are all part of God's plan, and you're all offending each other for His reasons.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps God called us all to be offended with differences, so that we can learn not to be offended by other's differences.
Really, though, I think this whole discussion is pointless. No one is going to change their minds, actions, or spiritual beliefs. That is why I stopped trying a long time ago.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I obviously am not communicating well. I thought I specifically said that I don’t believe the moderators are biased.
And the only people on this thread who have posted “details” of anything that goes on in LDS temples are LDS. All I, Rivka, Belle, and some others have tried to do is explain why what those LDS people have described is not something we want done in our names.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think it's worth pointing out here that other Protestant sects rebaptize, and they do it based on whether or not their own beliefs align closely enough with the beliefs of the group that first baptized you.
For example, the Baptists (uh, check the name...) rebaptize you if you were Catholic or LDS (and many others), but not if you came from one the denominations that "immerses." They believe that full immersion is the only valid method of baptism.
Interestingly, the Catholics have a "baptism of desire" or did back when I went through the catechism, maybe that was done away with in one of the various reforms.
Also, there are some that don't believe in infant baptism, and others who believe that's the best time to baptise. So, you have people who were sprinkled (not immersed) as infants, there are plenty of denominations who don't take that as valid.
And thus rebaptize.
There is an implied statement of "they have it so wrong that it was invalid" in all of these denials of one another's sacraments.
But here's the kicker:
While we can all obviously KNOW that God exists, we can't possibly KNOW his thoughts on many, many issues. And that is despite the availability of popes, prophets, or the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit to guide us. And this is where things (to my mind) cross into the most dangerous form of blasphemy, to me.
Because it is at this point where people begin to believe that someone is able to speak for God, to them, and FOR ALL others.
Note, please, that I am not saying the following:
1) I'm not saying, for example that the popes or the prophets, or priests/ministers or even some lay people can't know the will of God on an issue and express it to their flock.
2) I'm also NOT saying that church authorities aren't able to distinguish between God's commands on an issue and the influence of their own human filters/prejudices about an issue.
In fact, from what I know, I'd give the LDS prophets high marks on this latter point. And the current pope is the most judicious in my lifetime regarding the use of encyclicals -- by a wide margin it seems to me.
So...what am I saying?
I'm saying that the faithful in many denominations don't know how and when to claim "TRUTH" and when to claim "BELIEF."
For example, the fact that the LDS church wouldn't consider either of my two baptisms to be valid doesn't bother me in the least. The two different denominations who performed them considered each other's work invalid, so why not a 3rd opinion? But the fact that LDS considers them invalid based on a BELIEF that the person who performed the ceremony lacked God's authority to perform it just strikes me as not just offensive, not just wrong, but fighting wrong. Like I would be willing to defend both of my previous faiths from it on an open field with the weapon of your choice.
Because when you say that, you say "WE HAVE THE TRUTH AND NO-ONE ELSE DOES."
And when you say that, you'd better be able to: 1) Back it up, preferably with God at the physical head of your army, or, 2) Run faster than everyone else, and/or 3) post a huge-ass smiley right afterwards.
Because even if you absolutely believe that with all your heart and soul, you are personally speaking for God when you say it out loud. And that, my friends, is not anywhere in Scripture that I've seen, that God gives the average person the call to speak on that sort of thing for God.
But if you each have it, then so do I. Because you didn't get it by virtue of belonging to the LDS church (or any church, mind you -- I'm speaking VERY generically here -- every denomination I've ever looked at his this SAME EXACT problem). You get it because God gives it to those who believe in Him. If He does. And if there's a doctrinal litmus test that God uses, I'd like to see it. And I'd like to then have the power to TEST every preacher from any particular faith which claims this to see just how many of them are docrinally pure enough to actually have a hope of speaking for God on anything, let alone something as important as whether or not a different denomination is deluding its adherents to the point of them risking their own salvation.
And please note: I'm not prone to violence of any sort, so this is all just bluster. But when absolutism like the above is insisted upon, then there is no room for polite discourse and people might as well just resort to bloodshed because it is obvious right from the start that there is nothing to TALK about.
And isn't that a silly way for people who believe in the same God to behave?
Especially when that God calls upon us to love one another?
So I think we all need another way to do this. My personal suggestion is:
1) Everyone figure out where belief and truth are separate things in their denomination and NEVER EVER cross that line by blurring the two.
2) Everyone stop talking for God, or at least be careful about when they do it and in what context. Amongst others of the same faith -- sure, you sort of have to. In public? Think twice, then think again.
3) Shut the heck up when you think someone is just deluded. Or at least don't make a point of telling them you think they are deluded.
Now, I KNOW that might feel like it goes against God's call to each of us to proclaim the TRUTH. But what truth was he asking us to proclaim, the one of HIM or the one of OUR particular DENOMINATION?
I know for a fact that every evangelical church's members are capable of this level of discretion. I know it's true because there would be no way that any church would get people to come in for a visit if their missionary-types went around knocking on doors going: "Oh, you're <insert different denomination name here>. Ha! Well, you're going to hell unless you come over to our side." Even if they fervently believe that, they start out just being nice and offering information. Right? So discretion is part of the modus operandi of every attempt to win a soul to God.
People are capable of circumspection, if not actual respect.
So, when such circumspection is actually a SIGN of respect, shouldn't it be even easier for us to accomplish it?
And if that's true -- if there is real RESPECT -- not just the generic "love of all mankind" that we are told to practics, but real RESPECT for one another -- then it seems to me that there is room for the dialog we are denying ourselves by being absolutist.
Heck, it's almost like we need a common enemy to show us that we can get beyond our doctrinal disagreements and find the core of what is truly important.
And Satan is obviously not enough of a common enemy because he's just too nebulous or something.
Okay, okay, I know I'm wrong on this one. We join denominations specifically because we think this one has a handle on the TRUTH and the others don't. Right? So what'd be the point of having denominations if we couldn't separate them doctrinally? And that means we are doomed to fight about these issues until Jesus comes again and sorts it all out for us.
(or we find out that Christians were wrong to claim that God couldn't just bring into Heaven whomever He wanted, whenever He wanted)...
quote: For example, the Baptists (uh, check the name...) rebaptize you if you were Catholic or LDS (and many others), but not if you came from one the denominations that "immerses." They believe that full immersion is the only valid method of baptism.
But, but, *we* believe in full immersion baptism.... That must not be their only objection. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, just to let you know how we view priesthood authority: We believe the authority to act in the name of God, the priesthood, is given *only* by the laying on of hands (that means they must have physical hands, not just spiritual, so they must have a body, kinda like we believe you must have a body to be baptized, thus proxy work) from someone who has it. We believe their was an unbroken chain of this starting with Adam in the garden receiving it from our Father in Heaven (who we believe has a physical body, but on a much more glorified scale) down to Noah, through his son, Shem, to Abraham, and on down through Israel. We also believe that Christ had it and passed it on to his disciples. We believe that the line of authority was "broken" during the apostacy and that Peter, James, and John appeared as ressurected beings and gave it to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry. The line has been passed down to the men in the church today. Of course this leads to a whole new can of worms in that this authority is not "held" by women in the church.
Does this seem arrogant and offensive to the average Christian? I would think so. But nevertheless, it is what I believe. Edit: Why would God do something so rigid? IMO, to help avoid confusion. But between this and proxy work, it must be pretty apparent that we believe in a God who has a very orderly way of doing things.
This is not quite the same as truth, it is about a line of authority.
Edit: I just thought of something, there is more to this authority that I especially feel I must mention with respect for our Jewish Hatrack members. According to LDS doctrine, the Levitical priesthood is passed from father to son according to God's word on the matter. We believe there are two priesthoods, the Aaronic or Levitical, and the Melchezidek (it has a more sacred name, but is not often spoken), which is the higher of the two. We believe the Levitical priesthood is preparatory to the Melchezidek as we believe the Law of Moses was preperatory to Christ and His atonement. So, while a true "son of Levi" has that priesthood by virtue of birthright, any other male must recieve it by the laying on of hands.
posted
(as an unrelated aside, this thread will likely pass my original nick FlyingCow's post count either today or tomorrow... which is friggin' weird. And no, I haven't come up with a landmark for my 1000th yet... still stalling... )
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And see, saying that this is what you believe...I've got no problem with it. Because that implies (to me anyway), that you recognize that I'm free to believe otherwise and that while you consider it true, you aren't asserting that it's true for me and all my descendents.
This may sound like a fine point. I'm sure your convictions on the matter are strong and that for you, this belief is a cornerstone of faith and redemption.
But that's fine. I think as long as you state it as a belief of yours, there's no problem for me.
If, on the other hand, you attempt to assert its truth for everyone (a universal truth), then I have a problem. I begin to have a huge problem when the belief is turned into something that divides people into those who have God and those who don't (and are thus merely are deluded about it).
So, even though I know you might think that, if you don't assert it, I'm okay. If you assert it, then you are suddenly my enemy in Christ. And that shouldn't even be a proper statement to be possible to make. And it's not your doctrine that makes the statement possible, it's your insistence upon the doctrine. (you, generically, of course!)
As for the baptism immersion thing, yes, you're correct, the Baptists who don't like the LDS church have many more reasons for it. I won't go into those reasons here because I can't even begin to think about how to list them without offending our hosts and many of the good people here. Beside the fact that I consider those reasons about as condescending, counterproductive and unsubstantiated as the asserted truths coming from either side.
I'm basically uncomfortable with anyone asserting that they know what God thinks or wants except in very limited circumstances. And the stonger their assertion, the less likely I am to agree with them.
Fortunately, I've reached the point of out-right rejecting people's friendship only on very rare occassions and only because they couldn't let it go and I got tired of being told what God thought.
I guess all I'm really saying is that it's pretty easy for me to ignore the dumb stuff that different denominations teach their followers as long as the followers aren't too insistent on it. But when people get all wrapped around their own church's doctrine instead of what's actually in Scripture, informed by what they have experienced and/or can simply reason out for themselves, then I start to believe that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the entire enterprise and we (as a species and as Christians) have seriously lost their way.
But that doesn't mean that they are doomed (or even that I BELIEVE they are doomed). At worst it means I won't be their friend because I find them too darned difficult to be around.
So, if it turns out they were right all along, at least I haven't damaged their chance at eternal happiness.
But then, I believe that one thing is universally true. And that is that God decides who gets into Heaven and we don't. So even talking about it is a sort of mental onanism and about as far outside human purview as we can get.
Which makes me wonder why I posted in this thread.
But I do have to ask. This precision with which God is presumed to operate seems to involve a lot of technicalities. Most of the nitty-gritty details (like the exact forms of observance) are not part of the New Covenant. Is it an unfair observation to say that modern churches are injecting too much minutia into their doctrine and observance? In effect, going away from Christ's example by insisting on things that Christ didn't insist on?
We imitate his example, but if we do it from an imperfect understanding, I think we run the risk of doing the mysterious hand gestures and not the meaning or the content of the actions. Why would it ever matter whether someone was immersed or sprinkled? And, more importantly, if it really mattered that much, wouldn't God just come out and tell us instead of turning it into a trap for the majority of his hopeful followers?
If that's God, then I want someone else.
Fortunately, that's not God. That's man deciding what God thinks and wants. It's the prescriptions instead of the cure. So I ignore it.
I can't imagine God is that stupid about communicating with all of humanity. I mean, one good jingle in an ad running during a popular TV show could clear the whole thing up.
To not do so seems cruel. So I prefer to believe that God isn't that cruel. But people have proven themselves to be at least that cruel in every age and every generation, and every nation. So I figure if it is divisive, senseless and cruel, look to the humans as the instigators.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to tell you, sarcastic muppet, I HATE that particular explanation. It's fine for people to whom it brings peace and makes sense, but I don't like the quasi-doctrinal status it has taken on.
---
Explanation: No, the priesthood - that authority and responsiblity - is not passed on by hugs. It takes two to fulfill the promise of eternal life, but the responsibilities are different. A woman does not hold the priesthood, even when she's married to a priesthood holder. She's served by it, and can call upon that service, and operates within the authority, but women don't hold the priesthood even vicariously.
Sorry to harp on this. It's just that the explanation to me is a little too close to the explanation of power by that woman in the beginning of Hart's Hope.
posted
I wasn't trying to be quasi-doctinal, I was trying to be funny! Obviously it didn't work. Does anyone really take a quasi-doctrinal view on it? That's very weird.
Edit: The "My wife holds the priesthood every day bada bamsh" bit is standard Mormon comedy. Very much an inside joke, and when you think about it not really that funny. I've NEVER heard it outside a humorous context.
quote: But when people get all wrapped around their own church's doctrine instead of what's actually in Scripture, informed by what they have experienced and/or can simply reason out for themselves, then I start to believe that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the entire enterprise and we (as a species and as Christians) have seriously lost their way.
But, but, for us it *is* scriptural.
SM:
I have never personally had a problem with women not holding the priesthood in the LDS church. I know it has been a major struggle for others though.
quote: And, more importantly, if it really mattered that much, wouldn't God just come out and tell us instead of turning it into a trap for the majority of his hopeful followers?
And how does God do that? Through prophets. That's what all of scripture is. God didn't "write" the Bible, His prophets and apostles did. As for the LDS perspective, God has come out and said it. While we believe it's in the Bible, the information is more clear in the Book of Mormon. And missionaries are doing their darnest to spread that message. I don't think it is cruel at all, especially with all the opportunities God provides in this POV.
posted
beverly, I understand. Just as orthodox & conservative Jews who adhere to the Mosaic law take their law directly from Scripture, much of what is in LDS teaching is written the Book of Mormon, or comes from the living prophets.
Just as the pope occassionally issues an encyclical that is believed by Catholics to communicate God's thinking to the faithful.
Just as many people hear a still, small voice and understand it to be God speaking directly to them.
I can't gainsay it. I don't want to be in the position of one who questions another person's faith and (God forbid...really!) causes doubt in their mind.
But I can tell you that I don't believe any of it is universally true. And that goes for the Scripture I believe to be true in my belief system as well. It's just not a universal truth. I firmly believe that we humans have almost zero access to universal truth.
We have access to personal truth, and some shared truth, but almost no universal truth.
And that's the case for the pope, the prophets, and each of us who are hearing still, small voices. The beauty is that I think God is speaking to each of us individually. The sad part is that we are just so adrift in the universe. We transcend our plane so rarely, it's just pitiable.
I'll give you one example.
I believe in people's callings to be ministers. And I think that God calls anyone He wants to. For a church to decide that women cannot possibly be ministers/priests or conduct sacramental services is on the face of it just nonsense to me. That means that if God ever did it just once, the entire premise of that section of your faith is called into question. And from that the entire thing might start to unravel.
And yet, throughout history there have been women who minister, and preach, and conduct sacramental services in all but the name "priest." So we humans fudge it to keep our God consistent rather than change something that probably arose from mistaken understanding in the first place.
Why is it, for instance, that women can minister to children in virtually EVERY single religion on Earth? Because children's minds & souls don't matter? Because they're less easily affected? Because children understand that the lessons they get from a woman aren't really officially from God?
Nonsense!!!
If we were consistent with this proscription against women as preachers, the most important ministry -- that of inducing a love of God in our most vulnerable and impressionable members of the community would NEVER be entrusted to women. Not ever!
But it's done everywhere. Because women are good at it. So are men, given the chance. But if women can teach children about God, women can teach ANYONE about God.
And if teaching people about God isn't the single most important aspect of any priesthood, then I've completely missed the point of everything God has ever said or inspired to be said.
So,...It's just a man-made doctrine that should've been corrected hundreds of years ago. And if not for certain statements by Paul, misinterpreted over the millennia, I believe it would've been corrected long before now.
Thankfully, God speaks through the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and a few others. And we now see ordained women ministers doing exactly what good ministers should do. Leading people to a better relationship with God.
Put it another way. If you hear a good message, do you care that the person delivering it is a woman? If you do, you are probably missing out on at least 1/2 of the good messages God sends your way. So, of course, nobody is that stupid in their actual life. But the doctrine of a church tells them women can't be "priests" so they repeat that as if it were true for them. Even though their own experience tells them the opposite.
I have to say, doctrine holds a low place in my hierarchy of the ways to understand and approach God. Sometimes it can be good. But when it is inconsistent with Scripture, experience and reason, I think I'm very safe in rejecting it.
Now, I would have a serious problem belonging to a religion that reinforced its doctrine with either new scripture or new prophecy. I can understand the comfort that can be derived from having scripture consistent with doctrine, but it's supposed to be the other way around...first you get God's word, then you modify your doctrine to fit it. If you are working from new revelation, you have an added burden, I think, to make sure that you are also consistent with pre-existing scripture. And that's no mean feat, because you have to select which scriptures to emphasize as you go.
That this has obviously led to error in the past is, I think, without question. Otherwise, the LDS (and other revelatory churches) would never lag behind social changes that they ultimately adopt. They would be the first to implement things. They would be the ones to come up with them.
But they aren't. They are conservative and dilatory. Almost grudgingly accepting of reform, one might say. And even if they adopt a change quickly, it's still ipso facto, late because it should've been implemented still earlier.
So, of what use are the revelations?
Back to my first point... They are not universal. Because if they were, they would've been true for all time, including the time 100 years before the church finally adopted them.
So, the very fact that doctrine is changeable in ANY instance is proof of its lack of universality. It's not a big problem for me. I revel in that. Because it brings us all back to where I think we should be:
Uncertain of our command of God's will.
Uncertain of our knowledge of what our fellow man should be doing.
Concerned constantly over what we ourselves are doing and how it relates to what God has instructed US personally to do.
So the fact that your scripture has stuff in it that others don't is not a big concern to me. What you choose to do with it...that's a concern to me because it may mean we can't be more than estranged relatives. And I hate to see that.
Because I think God commanded us to behave in precisely the opposite way.
And, in a way, you won't let me. Because you insist on telling me that your God isn't my God unless I do like you do and act like you do, etc.
Now, to answer one more thing about the prophets.
Remember what the old Testament prophets did. They did not invent new observances. They called people to a renewal. Frankly, I don't see the LDS as leading a call to renewal. I think that the prophets (and the pope) to the extent that they innovate rather than explicate, are proving themselves to be something other than real prophets speaking the word of God.
They might be holy and even necessary. But they aren't prophets in the traditional sense that we could glean from the original scripture. At least not when they start to innovate.
And thus, if it is inconsistent with the original scripture, there is sound reason to distrust that it is what the believers say it is.
And so I do.
And yet, I applaud the ability to use this mechanism for innovation. I think it builds something potentially very powerful into the LDS church (and into the Catholic Church). The ability to radically change when the understanding shifts.
And to spread and incorporate that change easily and without tectonic upheaval that social change usually requires.
So, I think the popes and the prophets are wonderful agents of God. I don't happen to agree that they speak for God. At least not in the way that the Catholic or LDS churches teach. But I'm glad they represent a way to move their respective institutions forward through revolutionary changes.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I think you're going in some misunderstandings here. Unfortunatly I have to leave in about 10 minutes but we'll see where we can get to.
quote:Put it another way. If you hear a good message, do you care that the person delivering it is a woman? If you do, you are probably missing out on at least 1/2 of the good messages God sends your way.
I think this is a key misunderstanding. I can't speak for any other faith but I'll tell you what I think. Women are not idiots, women are every bit as intelligent as men. And thus women should speak in Church, reveal the Lord's words, help giud and direct, and generally minister unto both the Church and those outside. In my Church they do.
A signifcant amount of revelation was given to Emma Smith, not to Joseph Smith. There are three "sections" to a typical Sunday meeting, women speak in each one as often as men do. Women minister to everyone, heck, my brilliant Annie is called as a Sunday School teacher to the entire Ward she goes to.
When we say "women don't have the priesthood" we don't mean, "women aren't intelligent, important or capable" we mean women don't have the authority preform certain rites (like baptism for instance). Now you can argue if women should or should not be able to do this, but the arguments you were using before, well they don't apply to that, it is most certainly not Church doctrine that women aren't good teachers, that they can't give good messages and I want to be most clear about that.
posted
I was trying to figure out how best to say that, Hobbes, and I don't think I can do it better. Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remember what the old Testament prophets did. They did not invent new observances. They called people to a renewal. Frankly, I don't see the LDS as leading a call to renewal. I think that the prophets (and the pope) to the extent that they innovate rather than explicate, are proving themselves to be something other than real prophets speaking the word of God.
Where do you think Baptism, circumsision and the like came from Bob? Prophets have been on the Earth for a long time, it is my opinion that they will be on the Earth for a long time to come, almost all that they do is call people to reptance. At the begining of the founding of the Mormon Church that's almost all the Lord told Joseph and the apostles to do: call people to repantance. If you listen to the talks that the Prophet and apostles give you'll find they're all about A) calling people to repatance or B) telling people the best way to get back or stay on the path.
And now I have to go so I can't finish my thought. Hopefully at least you get an idea of what I was trying to say.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm sorry this has made you unhappy. I know that's sort of a crappy kind of apology. I have encountered your feelings before, and felt the same inadequacy of words.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The dialogue I posted was still me trying to explain what I was complaining about in the first place, not me accepting your challenge (yet).![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Hopefully at least you get an idea of what I was trying to say.
